Stoughton teachers file contract talk complaints against school board

Thursday

May 1, 2014 at 11:52 AMMay 1, 2014 at 1:08 PM

By Mike MelansonCorrespondent

STOUGHTON -- Negotiations to settle a new contract with Stoughton teachers continues as the school committee faces a series of state complaints alleging bad-faith negotiating on the part of the school board.The school committee also has had its membership changed after the annual town election, and the teachers union has lifted a ban on volunteer activities, such as acting as club advisors, in response to community support.The Stoughton School Committee and Stoughton Teachers Association entered a collective bargaining agreement that ran from Sept. 1, 2010 to Aug. 31, 2013. Both sides have been in negotiations for a successor agreement since March 2013, but there has been no new agreement.On April 1, the Massachusetts Department of Labor Relations (DLR) issued a complaint with four counts against the Stoughton School Committee for failure to bargain in good faith, in violation of state law.The department found probable cause that the school committee illegally refused to provide information to Stoughton teachers and bargained in bad faith over a proposed change.The complaints state that the committee failed to provide the union with prior notice and an opportunity to bargain to resolution or impasse about the school board's decisions to change from a seven-period day to an eight-period day and include a "Professional Collaboration Period" into the eight-period day, which would have an impact on employees' terms and conditions of employment.The committee also derivatively interfered with, restrained and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed under state law, the complaints state.During negotiations, the school committee proposed changing the Stoughton High School schedule from seven periods per day to eight periods per day. In January 2013, the committee announced a schedule with eight periods a day, to start in September 2014, and implemented the change by directing students to select courses for the fall 2014 term on an eight-period schedule. Employee work schedules are a mandatory subject of bargaining.The school committee also included a non-instructional period titled "Professional Collaboration Period" into the eight-period day. Job duties are a mandatory subject of bargaining.The Stoughton Teachers Association filed complaints with the state DLR against the school committee on Jan. 23 and Jan. 30. The DLR consolidated the complaints upon the parties' joint motion on Feb. 13. Nicholas Chalupa of the state DLR investigated the allegations in-person on Feb. 27.In an e-mail in response to questions from the Stoughton Journal, Andrea Pires, president of the Stoughton Teachers Union, stated that the two complaints issued on April 1 are in addition to six other state DLR complaints against the school committee for bad-faith bargaining in the past six months."The School Committee should be ashamed that eight unfair labor practice charges have been filed against them in the past year and a half, all of them dealing with bad faith bargaining and retaliation," she wrote.Pires said the next step in the process is a formal hearing on each of the charges. At the end of the hearing, dates will be set for attorneys to submit briefs. After that, the DLR will issue its decisions.If the DLR finds that the school committee violated the law, it will issue a cease and desist order ordering the school board to stop violating the law. The school committee will be required to post the cease and desist order in all places where employees congregate for at least 30 days. The decision will be published, "so that the behavior of the Stoughton School Committee will be known to interested parties across the state," Pires stated."This is a very time-consuming and expensive process. It's a shame that money is being diverted from our schools to pay for attorneys' fees to defend the indefensible," she wrote.In response to questions by the Journal, school committee member Joyce Husseini, who has been on the negotiating committee for the school board, wrote that she did not have the information about the complaints in front of her, nor could she predict what the consequences would be.The complaints also state that the school committee failed to provide information that is relevant and reasonably necessary to the union's performance as the exclusive collective bargaining representative for teachers, nurses and administrators working in Stoughton Public Schools.On Sept. 20, 2013, the union requested by letter information concerning the name, school, step, and lane placement for each member of Unit A for the 2013-2014 school year; by category, the deductions that were taken from salaries for summer work; and a copy of the employment contracts or salary agreements that were given to the nurses for this school year. The union repeated this request orally and in writing to school Superintendent Marguerite Rizzi on Dec. 12, 2013. The school committee did not respond, the complaints state.On Dec. 18, 2013, the union requested by letter information concerning the title of every position that carries a stipend within Stoughton Public Schools; the stipend that is currently being paid for each position; the name of the person who has or most recently held the position; and for each person listed, to state the person's job title if employed by Stoughton Public Schools or indicate if the person is not employed by Stoughton Public Schools. The school committee did not provide the information, the complaints state.Pires said that throughout the dispute, Stoughton teachers continued to come to work early and stay late to help students. However, teachers did not agree to volunteer for some voluntary activities, such as curriculum committees or others that the superintendent wants in each school, she said."Due to the overwhelming support from the community, we decided to lift the ban on those activities about a month ago, so teachers are free to volunteer again," she wrote.Pires said both sides met with a private mediator on April 2 and April 9, dates that were scheduled well ahead of the April 8 annual Town Election.Stoughton voters ousted incumbent school committee members Deborah Sovinee, with 940 votes, and George Dolinsky, with 900 votes. Dolinsky was serving on the negotiating subcommittee for the school committee.Elected to the school board were challengers Joaquin Soares Jr., with 1,418 votes, and Mari-Kate Pina-Enokian, with 1,377 votes."Although we met on April 9, we did not expect to settle because we were meeting with the old school committee team on Mr. Dolinsky's last day in office," Pires wrote.Husseini said dates for the next negotiating sessions are currently being chosen. She said she does not know what the impact of the lifting of the ban on voluntary activities would be, nor how the election results would affect the bargaining process.Pires said Stoughton voters overwhelmingly voted for change and an end to the "dysfunction," and that the new school committee has a mandate to settle the contract."We believe the election demonstrated in a very powerful way that the Stoughton community supports and values its teachers and does not support the positions taken by the School Committee over the past year in bargaining," she wrote. "Stoughton teachers are hopeful that the new School Committee will show that teachers are valued by settling the contract soon, rather than engaging in empty platitudes about us being their most 'valuable asset.' Action, not words, will get Stoughton schools back on track."On election night, Dolinsky said that the teachers union was asking for what would amount to a 24-percent pay increase over three years in step and cost-of-living adjustments.Pires said that claim is not true, and that teachers are proposing increases of 2.75 percent in the first year, 2.75 percent in the second year, and 2.75 percent in the third year, as part of a three-year contract.Husseini said that while teachers have asked for a 2.75 percent increase in each of the three years, it does not include the annual step increase that is paid to nearly two-thirds of the school district's teachers."The average step is 5-percent. So the majority of our teachers would receive an annual increase in pay of 7.75-percent per year, not 2.75-percent," Husseini stated, in the email.Pires said the April 1 state DLR complaints came on the same day that the school committee voted, 4-1, to remove $342,000 from the teachers' salary account."The impact is that it removes $342,000 from the bargaining table that could be used to settle the teachers' contract," Pires stated, in the e-mail.Husseini said money was transferred from the instruction line to cover unexpected increases in transportation for both homeless students and special education transportation. Money set aside for payment of steps was not touched, she said."This money was available because when the budget is determined the prior year, we fund salaries for the employees that are in the system at that time. One way that money in that account becomes available is when teachers retire and are replaced with teachers who are less experienced, and therefore paid less," Husseini said, in the e-mail.On April 9, the state DLR issued a complaint of prohibited practice and partial dismissal in connection with a charge filed by the Stoughton Teachers Association against the school committee on Jan. 29. Aaron Swinderman of the state DLR conducted an in-person investigation on March 11.The DLR found probable cause that the school committee interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in exercise of their rights in violation of state law.The complaint states that the school committee did not allow the union to speak at two school committee meetings.On Dec. 15, 2013, Pires e-mailed Husseini requesting to be placed on the agenda for the Dec. 17, 2013 school board meeting. Husseini responded on Dec. 17 and indicated that the union would not be on the agenda, that the public comment period of the meeting would not be a proper venue to do so, and the place to talk is at the bargaining table. The school committee did not allow the union to speak at the meeting, the complaint states.On Dec. 18, 2013, Pires e-mailed Husseini requesting to be placed on the agenda for the Jan. 15 meeting. On Jan. 13, Husseini responded, denying the request and saying the time to talk is at the negotiating table. On Jan. 15, the committee did not allow the union to speak, the complaint states.The state DLR dismissed charges that the school committee unilaterally changed a condition of employment or implemented a new condition of employment involving a mandatory subject of bargaining without first giving the union an opportunity to bargain, as a result of not letting the union speak at the two meetings.The union had requested and was permitted to speak at school board meetings on Oct. 8, 2013; Oct. 22, 2013; Nov. 12, 2013; Nov. 22, 2013; and Dec. 10, 2013, the complaint states.The DLR found that the Stoughton Teachers Association did not make any argument that the ability to speak at school committee meetings affected terms and conditions of employment, and did not produce evidence that the change affected a mandatory subject of bargaining.The DLR findings noted that a finding that the union's ability to speak at school board meetings is a mandatory subject of bargaining would run contrary to the board's policy that a party cannot insist on bargaining in an open session because it detrimentally affects the parties' ability to reach agreement.